On Nov 9, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Kevin Williams wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
Yes ideally, but I guess this config info is going to be quite
big - so a
whole lot of properties might be required. Maybe it would still
be ok and
its just that I am not yet used to seeing component defintions
with lots of
properties. :)
Why are there so many properties?
The RDB DAS has quite a lot of configurable items: the Command set,
an optional DataSource JNDI name, whether or not to commit/
rollback, optional static Type set, optional Table/Columns
aliases, etc. I suppose we could look into in-lining this in the
SCDL. But, it would probably be easiest to start by just
referencing the DAS config file in the SCDL.
OK. That makes sense. Luciano pointed me to a sample last night. This
has me thinking that it may make sense to approach the DAS as a
component extension. Rick posted a question about why DAS should be a
component extension vs. a POJO service so I'll respond there with
specifics about this.
Jim
Maybe some can be automated or consolidated into a composite-wide
configuration. Also, having multiple config artifacts for single
components makes things difficult to track and tool.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
